System Center Configuration Manager Feedback

Ideas

What features would you like to see?

All of the feedback that you share in these forums will be monitored and reviewed by the Microsoft engineering teams responsible for building System Center Configuration Manager, though we can’t promise to reply to all posts.

Standard Disclaimer – our lawyers made us put this here ;-) Please note that the System Center Configuration Manager feedback site is moderated and is a voluntary participation-based project. Please do not send any novel or patentable ideas, copyrighted materials, samples or demos which you do not want to grant a license to Microsoft. See the “User Voice Terms of Service” link below for more information.

How can we improve Configuration Manager?

You've used all your votes and won't be able to post a new idea, but you can still search and comment on existing ideas.

There are two ways to get more votes:

When an admin closes an idea you've voted on, you'll get your votes back from that idea.

You can remove your votes from an open idea you support.

To see ideas you have already voted on, select the "My feedback" filter and select "My open ideas".

Tell us your idea

(thinking…)

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

If a similar idea already exists, you can support and comment on it.

If it doesn't exist, you can post your idea so others can support it.

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

Consider this scenario:
* app A deployed to a number of machines via required deployment
* app a Version 2.0 comes out, we create a supersedence for the old app
* deploy Version 2.0 to a small collection with an 'Available' Deployment
* witness in horror as machines automatically begin applying the updated version
* check the deployment after the fact and discover that a check box of ''Automatically upgrade any superceded versions of this application' has now appeared in the deployment, and is forced checked.

No where in SCCM is this behavior explained or documented and I've seen this bite SCCM Admins at two separate customers now.

The workaround for controling this behavior is to make a deployment of Version 2.0 first, THEN create the supercedence, which will add the checkbox to the deployment but NOT check it.

Very very strange and puzzling behavior here.

This is definitely in the catagory of a bug or design change.

Consider this scenario:
* app A deployed to a number of machines via required deployment
* app a Version 2.0 comes out, we create a supersedence for the old app
* deploy Version 2.0 to a small collection with an 'Available' Deployment
* witness in horror as machines automatically begin applying the updated version
* check the deployment after the fact and discover that a check box of ''Automatically upgrade any superceded versions of this application' has now appeared in the deployment, and is forced checked.

This is a buggy, Would we like the option to have ' Uninstall Application when Resource falls out of scope of this collection' when an application is deployed to a collection, this would save us having to create 2 collections ( install and uninstall) and to deployments. This would save SO much time and reduce the complicity of application management.

Many customers want to be able to force a reinstallation of an application. this deployment should ignore all detection rules and just install the application again.
At the moment this is not possible.

Many places like to give users custom UIs when an application is being installed. It would be nice to be able to prompt the user for input or give them information without losing the ability to add that application to a task sequence.

Basically would like something similar to the Windows Updates Reboot/Postpone nag prompt except with the ability to customize the notification text as applicable to the deployment.

For example:, as a sub-setting of the deployment type for the application you have the option to enable the reboot/postpone prompt and customize the notification text of the dialog box.

If the user that receives the prompt, postpones they will be re-prompted at the end of the postponement period until they either reboot or shutdown the system. (basically exactly the same behavior as the Windows Updates reboot/postpone prompt).

There is the ability to specify dependencies for Applications, however the ability to run another Application POST install would be awesome. Often when an application is installed there is a post configuration task that needs to run.

It would be great to have a possibility to create a deployment where the User would be logged off during the installation of Software. Useful for Software like Java Runtime or Adobe Pro where a running application can prevent the installation.
The User should be informed that an installation will be started and he will be logged off. The User should be not able to login during the installation.

Allow packages to be deployed to multiple collections at one time. For instance I need AppX to go to Lab 1, Lab 2 and Lab4. Instead of going into AppX 3 different times to deploy, it would be nice to deploy it to all 3 labs at one time.

When you deploy an application with dependencies, you loose the option to uninstall it from software center. It would be nice to be able to uninstall the main app and be able to choose if the dependencies would uninstall or not.

Policy requests are made on computer level. When assigning an application to a computer we regularly trigger a machine policy request to speed up the installation. This is not possible when user assignment is used, as we don’t know which computer(s) the user is currently logged on to. We can guess by checking for example “Last logon User Name”, this is however not live data and thus not very accurate. If the client instead reported who’s logged on as part of the user policy request at log on, we would know. This would allow to trigger a User policy request on the computer(s) that are “online” and the user has been reported as logged on to.

Policy requests are made on computer level. When assigning an application to a computer we regularly trigger a machine policy request to speed up the installation. This is not possible when user assignment is used, as we don’t know which computer(s) the user is currently logged on to. We can guess by checking for example “Last logon User Name”, this is however not live data and thus not very accurate. If the client instead reported who’s logged on as part of the user policy request at log on, we would know. This would allow to trigger a User policy request…

Please make the SCCM client's ScriptExecutionTimeout attribute a parameter that can be configured within Client Settings policy. This would be the best way to help address the "In-line script execution time-out... DiscoverApp failed (0x87d00321)

Get rid of Silverlight from the Application Catalog. We can all say it's Google's fault but the bottom line is the #1 browser now doesn't render the application catalog properly by default. This is pretty annoying.

While we're at it ... let's clean up the same/single sign-in experience as well. Having to have the website in the trusted zone and only the short NetBIOS name work for same sign-on ... it's clunky. I know I can set GPOs to add the FQDN and do other things as well ... but the bottom line is it's a lot of "special things" for something that should be seamless. SAML anyone?

Get rid of Silverlight from the Application Catalog. We can all say it's Google's fault but the bottom line is the #1 browser now doesn't render the application catalog properly by default. This is pretty annoying.

While we're at it ... let's clean up the same/single sign-in experience as well. Having to have the website in the trusted zone and only the short NetBIOS name work for same sign-on ... it's clunky. I know I can set GPOs to add the FQDN and do other things as well ... but the bottom line is it's a lot of "special things"…

I work in a quite big Environment, 30k clients and my network team isn’t that happy when we pull the trigger to update our critical LOB apps due to the fact that every computer downloads the content almost at the same time. That puts a lot of pressure on the network infrastructure.
There for it would be great to be able to preload the clients with content for applications in a slow and steady way before the deadline falls for the application.

Managing applications and understanding their dependencies is a significant challenge. Having the ability to understand what applications depend on system components, such as .NET or other, would be a significant benefit to ensure minimal production impact when working to upgrade an operating system or an application version. A recent example in a customers infrastructure was legacy software with dependencies on a specific version of .NET. Being able to see what these dependencies are ahead of time across the enterprise and manage them proactively would have been a huge win.

When you create a new package or import an MSI there are predetermined "Programs" that are labeled "Per-system unattended" or "Per-user unattended" it would be great to have the ability to rename these existing programs. The only option currently is to delete the program and recreate it.

App Model - Optional User Deployment - When user policy is recieved, perform app eval to check if app is installed, if so show as installed in Software Center. (Currently it doesn't evaluate and shows option to install even if already present. When you click the install button... it then performs the evaluation and changes to installed and provides the uninstall button. This is confusing to our end users)

I have to create several very large (10GB and up) software deployments each year and install them for two thirds of the user base. Preferred method of delivery is install directly from the DP rather than download the installation files to C:\windows\ccmcache. It would be nice to do this using the application model so I can make use of the extended feature set it provides over the package model. I have to work around the limitations using convoluted wrapper scripts to get everything working properly.

It would be good if we are able to have a ring based model for Application Deployment and management as we have for Windows 10 CB rollout with early adopters ring, Pilot ring, Production ring . This will help a lot as we are seeing the benefit of the ring model in Windows 10 Deployment.